Donald Trump is right about waterboarding!

originally posted by: neoholographic
I would cut back on drone strikes before I stop waterboarding.

Exactly!
I believe both methods are helping terrorists recruit more to their ranks. But blowing up an entire family/village(via drone strike) because one was a suspected terrorist is a far more of an effective recruitment tool. It sends a clear message to the people of the middle east.

"You and your loved ones are not worthy of our time or our compassion. Easier to just vaporize you all from 20,000 feet".

How can we call someone a "terrorist" when the very tactic's our military uses are designed to instill terror in people. As an American I fear my government and military far more than I fear these "terrorists" half way around the world. Living under the constant fear that you could become collateral damage at any moment must be horrifying.

a reply to: schuyler
Psychological effects make it torture I suppose.

a reply to: amazing

Well no, of course we wouldn't use torture, because hard data and research have shown that it's ineffective.

The only people that say that are pundits, and politico's, and politicians.

If it was so ineffective funny how it has been used since mankind started calling himself 'civilized'.

Guess it's just better to drone them to death, and lose out on any human intelligence whatsoever.

Maybe if we waterboarded MORE instead of drone ISIS could have been nipped in the bud.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: amazing

Well no, of course we wouldn't use torture, because hard data and research have shown that it's ineffective.

The only people that say that are pundits, and politico's, and politicians.

If it was so ineffective funny how it has been used since mankind started calling himself 'civilized'.

Guess it's just better to drone them to death, and lose out on any human intelligence whatsoever.

Maybe if we waterboarded MORE instead of drone ISIS could have been nipped in the bud.

OR>..mabye you could do some actual research and find out the truth for yourself like I have. Or you could parrot right wing propaganda. I'd rather think for myself.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neoholographic


I find this argument idiotic on all levels.

You said it mate. This argument IS idiotic. Torture is against the Geneva Conventions. Plain and Simple. It's one of the reasons most of the 1st world was visibly upset with American foreign policy during the Bush years.

If what you are saying is valid, then the US tortures all pilots attending survival training. I was waterboarded twice while in training and I suffered no ill effects.

The Geneva Convention classified torture as leaving permanent physical or mental injury. It also covers hard physical labor by captives as being torture. So let me make this "idiotic" point in your words. My grandparents made me clean the barn when I was a teenager. It is heavy, long and dirty work which would take most of the day. I had no choice but to comply. The Geneva Convention states that work may not be demeaning or be humiliating. Cleaning the scat from a 10 stall barn is humiliating, demeaning and very hard work. IS this torture?

It is my contention, that most people who comment about torture have no idea what they are talking about! They have a scale of what is and what isn't torture that doesn't align with the law. The US has guidelines on how to do interogation which is not available to the general public and I don't think that you have read it.

a reply to: amazing

OR>..mabye you could do some actual research and find out the truth for yourself like I have. Or you could parrot right wing propaganda. I'd rather think for myself.

Research like THIS ?

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically,

www.aclu.org...

So lemme get this straight.

IT's only 'ineffective' under republican administrations.

I actually DO research instead of parroting the election of 2008's talking points.

Because D's are 'better'.

The OP seems too emotional in all honesty when it comes to this. And hasn't payed much attention to the information provided by other members about the Geneva Convention. Using dead children and emotion as a singular argument about two acts by the USA (within the confines of this discussion) and combining these two issues though they are both separate issues...

a reply to: Tiamat384

The 'Geneva Convention' only applies to STATES, and was AGREED upon by all parties involved.

Not religious cults.

Islamofascists are not a state, and is not recognized by anyone.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neoholographic


I find this argument idiotic on all levels.

You said it mate. This argument IS idiotic. Torture is against the Geneva Conventions. Plain and Simple. It's one of the reasons most of the 1st world was visibly upset with American foreign policy during the Bush years.

The question becomes, how do you define "torture." My uncle, Vladimir Ivanovich Krasowsky, was tortured by the Germans in WW II. They pulled out his fingernails with a pair of pliers.

That's torture.

Someone who is waterboarded has the sensation that they are drowning, but they aren't. There is no physical harm to them at all. Yet people call waterboarding "torture."

Apples and oranges.

Not really if you are harming someone mentally or physically to get information that is torture period.
If Chinese water torture is torture then so is waterboarding.

a reply to: neo96
That only goes to one point of my response. And exactly. It is recognized by the USA. Thereby the USA recognizes it is illegal to torture. Does not matter if the recipient recognizes it so long that the actor does.

a reply to: neo96

how about this ...Senate finds CIA torture was largely ineffective

www.nbcnews.com...

and this...study shows torture is ineffective

www.livescience.com...

and this former FBI interrogator on the ineffectiveness of torture

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

There internet is full of article, research paper and testimony by people actually in the interrogation business on why torture is ineffective, but by all means, listen to Rush and Savage.

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neoholographic


I find this argument idiotic on all levels.

You said it mate. This argument IS idiotic. Torture is against the Geneva Conventions. Plain and Simple. It's one of the reasons most of the 1st world was visibly upset with American foreign policy during the Bush years.

If what you are saying is valid, then the US tortures all pilots attending survival training. I was waterboarded twice while in training and I suffered no ill effects.

The Geneva Convention classified torture as leaving permanent physical or mental injury. It also covers hard physical labor by captives as being torture. So let me make this "idiotic" point in your words. My grandparents made me clean the barn when I was a teenager. It is heavy, long and dirty work which would take most of the day. I had no choice but to comply. The Geneva Convention states that work may not be demeaning or be humiliating. Cleaning the scat from a 10 stall barn is humiliating, demeaning and very hard work. IS this torture?

It is my contention, that most people who comment about torture have no idea what they are talking about! They have a scale of what is and what isn't torture that doesn't align with the law. The US has guidelines on how to do interogation which is not available to the general public and I don't think that you have read it.

BRAVO!!

I was in the Military as well and experienced things that are worse then waterboarding. Try going through Air Assault School. Send a terrorist through that schoool and they will beg for waterbording.

Try marching 5 miles in the sun with your boots on and carrying a heavy rucksack.

Talk about mental torture. The Army is all about breaking you down mentally.

Try living in the field in a foxhole and small tent for 2 weeks.

So again, crying about waterboarding makes no sense especially when are drone strikes are killing children. The reason why Obama is doing more drone strikes because he wants to avoid capturing and detaining terrorist. He would rather kill them along with innocent children and ISIS has just gotten stronger.



This is the true menace not waterboarding.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'd say causing physical discomfort that simulates dying constitutes pretty clearly as torture.

How the Sheol do you simulate dying ? Please tell.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: seagull

Some people call it wrong. That's their prerogative.

It is.

However I don't lose any sleep over it. Especially when it comes to 'true believers of ALLAH'.

That is your prerogative, of course. I just have trouble with it being used in conjunction with "we're the good guys!" press releases/speeches. The hypocrisy is rather obvious.

That goes around cutting peoples heads, off that is when they are not bombing the hell out of someone else. That go around marrying little girls. Then raping them.

I have a lot of trouble with that, too. Don't know anyone who doesn't... Not sure how torturing folks solves that particular little issue though.

I know people like to think we are 'better', but when it comes to REAL American history. That is chalked full of devilish little details.

History is full of gray like that... Did you think I'd disagree? I just have issues with the hypocrisy of claiming moral high ground while utilizing methods that are dubious to say the least.

How else is one to fight religious 'batsnip' crazy zealots.

Not by becoming them, that seems obvious to me. Other than that? Your guess is as good as mine.

The only thing that upsets me. Is how people think 'torture' is worse than what those Islamofascists do on a daily basis.

Worse? Maybe not. The same sort of thing? I'd have to say yes.

If we are to win this fight, we can not use the same sorts of tactics as the "bad guys". Not only do we have to defeat them on the battlefields of Syria, and elsewhere, we have to defeat them in the bedrooms/living-rooms/dens of the West. To do that, there has to be a viable alternative. when the alternative is horrid and horrid, where's the alternative?

This sort of thing plays right into the hands of the recruiters of ISIS, and other organizations looking for angry youngsters.

a reply to: seagull

We don't want to become them. Look at Europe they don't don't "torture"" people but they also look a lot more like the middle east these days

originally posted by: neo96

It only matter when a 'republican' suggests it.

More brown haemorrhages from the wrong exit,

In 2006, the Bush administration banned torture including waterboarding on detainees. In January 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama issued a similar ban on the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture in interrogations of detainees.
The US Senate in that time said waterboarding was a waste of time, principally because the CIA waterboarders could not prove their case, Also the American, Department of Defense would not comment on the use of waterboarding for training purposes, so there you go, two fingers stuck up to both administrations from the military and intel.
What's even harder to find is, were any of those prisoners actually not involved in any terrorism? odds on that there were, but that's just me saying that. However contrast that to Trump also saying, when talking about water boarding, Give it to them, "they deserve it anyway"
Talk about the 'Mad Mullah' Now we have a Western version. Never heard of him? go and look it up, there's nothing hew under the Sun.

If you torture anyone long enough, they will tell you anything..why is that so hard to comprehend?

Regardless of the fact that it could be complete BS.

a reply to: amazing

That's just nonsense and a bunch of Political documents with people pontificating about waterboarding and it has nothing to do with reality.

The fact is, the Democrat in charge of the C,I.A. said information came from these techniques that led to Bin Laden.

Leon Panetta Admits Information from Waterboarding Led US to Bin Laden (Video)

“The real story was that in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to Bin Laden, there were a lot of pieces out there that were a part of that puzzle. Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used. But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that.”

humanevents.com...



The Ex-C.I.A. Chief who carried out these things said it worked.

Ex-CIA chief defends waterboarding of al Qaeda leader

Former Clandestine Service head Jose Rodriguez defends "enhanced interrogation techniques" and questions the drone strike policy. Watch Lesley Stahl's interview on Sunday, April 29 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Jose Rodriguez has no regrets about using the "enhanced interrogation techniques" - methods that some consider torture -- on al Qaeda detainees questioned after 9/11 and denies charges they didn't work. The former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service talks to Lesley Stahl about those methods, including waterboarding, for the first time and defends their use - even comparing them to the current policy of killing al Qaeda leaders with drone strikes. The Rodriguez interview will be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, April 29 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Rodriguez says everything his interrogators did to top-level terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah was legal and effective. "We made some al Qaeda terrorists with American blood on their hands uncomfortable for a few days," he tells Stahl. "I am very secure in what we did and am very confident that what we did saved American lives," says Rodriguez, who has written a book on the subject called "Hard Measures."

Pressed by Stahl about charges that Zubaydah, who was waterboarded and sleep deprived, gave false information that wasted U.S. resources, Rodriguez replies, "Bull****!, He gave us a roadmap that allowed us to capture a bunch of al Qaeda senior leaders," says the ex-spy.

So again, before I shed tears about a handful of terrorist that were waterboarded, I will concentrate on capturing and detaining terrorist instead of killing innocent children with drone strikes!

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: neo96

how about this ...Senate finds CIA torture was largely ineffective

www.nbcnews.com...

and this...study shows torture is ineffective

www.livescience.com...

and this former FBI interrogator on the ineffectiveness of torture

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

There internet is full of article, research paper and testimony by people actually in the interrogation business on why torture is ineffective, but by all means, listen to Rush and Savage.

They sure didn't have a problem with it under Clinton,Kennedy, and Johnson.

'Now' they do.

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

www.aclu.org...

Torture was ok. We just did a 'little' bit of it!

Although under Johnson thanks to Laos and Cambodia 'we' were doing quite a hell of a lot of it.

Had enough of the selective outrage.

a reply to: neoholographic

Torture (and everyone who has experienced waterboarding has said that it is torture, so we're not even going to debate that point) does not work. It just does not. Why? Because people will say anything to stop it. They'll confess to the most outlandish rubbish to get it to stop. Want someone to admit to being Donald Duck? Torture them. Want someone to confess to being an alien? Torture them.
Torture does not result in actionable intelligence. It does not result in genuine results.
Oh and Trumpster is a bloviating moron.